HIGH COPYRIGHT STAKES – The Billion Naira Copyright Dispute OVER Sinach’s “Way Maker”: A Lesson for Creatives
The ongoing legal battle between international gospel artist Sinach and her music producer Michael Oluwole over the copyright of the global smash hit “Way Maker” highlights a critical issue within the creative industries: the blurred lines of authorship or ownership and the need for clear contractual agreements. This is a dispute, with seriously high stakes, and serves as a cautionary tale, underscoring the importance of proactive legal protection for all creatives, regardless of their perceived stature or the perceived informality of their working relationships.[1]
Oluwole’s claim rests on his assertion of significant creative contributions beyond his role as a studio engineer. He claims to have gone over and beyond mixing and mastering the track but also created and performed instrumental arrangements. This highlights a common grey area: where does technical contribution end and creative authorship begin? Whilst mixing and mastering are undeniably skilled technical processes, Oluwole’s claim pivots on the argument that his instrumental arrangements constituted original creative input warranting co-authorship and thus a share of the substantial profits generated by “Way Maker.”[2]
Sinach, on the other hand, maintains her sole authorship, arguing that Oluwole’s contribution was purely technical and fully compensated. This position follows common practice, particularly in less formal creative environments, where explicit contractual agreements are absent. While the absence of a written agreement does not automatically negate a claim, it significantly weakens Oluwole’s position, highlighting the critical importance of clear contracts.
The Copyright Act defines the author of an audiovisual work as the person by whom the arrangements for the making of the audiovisual work were made, unless the parties to the making of the audiovisual work, provide otherwise by contract between themselves, and defines the author of a sound recording as the person by whom the arrangements for the making of the sound recording were made.[3]
In Nika Fishing Co. Ltd. v. Lavina Corporation,[4] the Supreme Court held that parties to a contract have the freedom to determine their terms and no other person, not even the court, can determine the terms of a contract between parties thereto
The “Way Maker” case has far-reaching implications for the Nigerian music industry and beyond. The outcome will set a precedent for future disputes, influencing how courts interpret the boundaries of creative contribution and the necessity of formal contracts. This case underscores that even seemingly minor collaborations necessitate meticulous documentation to prevent future conflicts.[5]
What can creatives learn from this high-profile dispute? Several key takeaways emerge:
-
Formalise all agreements:
Regardless of the perceived informality of a collaboration, creatives should always formalise their agreements in writing. This includes clearly defining each party’s contributions, outlining ownership rights, specifying compensation, and addressing potential future disputes. Ambiguity is the enemy of clarity, and clarity is crucial in avoiding costly legal battles.
-
Understand copyright law[6]:
A fundamental understanding of copyright law is essential for all creatives. This knowledge allows them to protect their intellectual property effectively, ensuring fair compensation for their work. Seeking qualified and expert legal counsel with the knowledge of copyright law to understand and navigate copyright nuances is strongly advised, especially in collaborations involving multiple parties.
-
Document absolutely everything:
Maintain meticulous records of all creative processes, including emails, contracts, invoices, whatsapp messages though its not advisable to transact there and any other documentation that can substantiate claims of authorship or contribution. Detailed records can significantly strengthen a creative’s legal position in the event of a dispute.
-
Negotiate upfront:
Clear communication and negotiation from the outset are vital. Discuss and agree upon ownership, compensation, and usage rights before any significant work commences. This proactive approach fosters better working relationships and helps to minimize potential disagreements later.
The “Way Maker” case serves as a stark reminder that even the most successful creative endeavours can be entangled in legal complexities. By implementing these preventative measures, creatives can significantly reduce their risk of facing similar costly and time-consuming legal battles. The lesson is clear: proactivity and legal awareness are not optional, but essential tools for safeguarding the fruits of creative labour.
[1]Vanguard News (2024) N5bn battle over ‘Way Maker’: Sinach, producer clash in court accessed on 27 November 2024 from https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/11/n5bn-battle-over-way-maker-sinach-producer-clash-in-court/amp/
[2] Ibid
[3] Section 108(1) Copyright 2022
[4] [2008] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1114) at p. 543.
[5] Charalambos (2023) understanding the difference between authorship and ownership in music copyright access on 30 November 2024 from https://www.aftersunsetmusic.com/blog/understanding-the-difference-between-authorship-and-ownership-in-music-copyright/#:~:text=Authorship%20and%20ownership%2C%20though%20closely,label%20in%20return%20for%20royalties.
[6] Copyright Act 2022
Contributors
